The Trouble with Data and Statistics

[JtotheIzzo]

We as a posting community have become too reliant on certain bits of information to power home our collective points. What's worse is we use a lot of this data to discredit people, their achievements and historical record to make a statement and to make us feel better about our own viewpoints. We are perverting information in the same way conspiracy theorists do to help sell our idea, while we are ignoring or undervaluing other key pieces of data and certain realities of the time.

Using stats to dissect the 1980's or even the 1990's to a certain degree without having lived through those times leads to false findings and misleading 'facts'. Lets call it the 'Fat Lever Fallacy'. Did you know that for a four year stretch in the 80s and 90s Fat Lever's averages hovered near 19ppg, 9rpg, 8apg? Pretty gaudy numbers for a pretty forgettable player. But this was commonplace in the Western conference in that era as teams tried to run the score up and beat tired teams because they believed the travel visiting teams had to do to get to their venues (when compared to the close proximity of Eastern conference matches) gave them a huge advantage. Road teams rarely lost during this era, unless the match up was heavily tilted in one direction. As a result, the statistical referencing from this era needs to be marked with a giant asterisk because coaches like Paul Westhead and Doug Moe (who coached Fat) employed a run and gun style and their teams averaged near and sometimes over 110ppg. This was a common tactic with Western Conference teams during that era, and only the team that perfected it (the Lakers) won titles. If you look at Western conference stats from the early 80s to the mid 90s many players (especially the PG position) have inflated stats.

Sometime in the 1990s more and more NBA teams started chartering flights and buying their own planes, there was a time not that long ago where teams flew commercial (delays, cancellations, cramped seating etc...) but with the travel disadvantage becoming minimized and training regiments and fitness levels being improved, it was no longer an easy task to run a tired team off the floor. When the Pistons and then later when the Bulls manhandled the Lakers in the 1991 finals the blueprint was beginning to change. Teams were starting to win with defense. Defense was no longer something you did in only the playoffs, it was beginning to be the main focus of many team philosophies. As a result numbers dipped, coaches like Pat Riley completely changed philosophies and a new era was ushered in. So much so that after Jordan left, many of the best players in the league were power forwards, a position previously held by team goon or low post specialist.

This is just one example of many and it is what makes cross-era comparisons tricky. It is also what makes disproving a past occurrence with 'facts' (stats) a false positive. Yes stats are facts, but they do not tell the whole story, basketball is more jazz music than math and even if you can read the sheet music it doesn't mean you can articulate the mood of the concert, the level of the performers and the difficulties they faced, the accuracy with which they performed etc...

let use stats to help paint a picture not frame it. And when we are ranking players in 'all time best' formats, lets not use stat comparisons as the final word, it is just wrong.

[knightfall88]

if we don't rely solely on stats, would Lebron still have a career?

[GiveItToBurrito]

We as a posting community have become too reliant on certain bits of information to power home our collective points. What's worse is we use a lot of this data to discredit people, their achievements and historical record to make a statement and to make us feel better about our own viewpoints. We are perverting information in the same way conspiracy theorists do to help sell our idea, while we are ignoring or undervaluing other key pieces of data and certain realities of the time.

Using stats to dissect the 1980's or even the 1990's to a certain degree without having lived through those times leads to false findings and misleading 'facts'. Lets call it the 'Fat Lever Fallacy'. Did you know that for a four year stretch in the 80s and 90s Fat Lever's averages hovered near 19ppg, 9rpg, 8apg? Pretty gaudy numbers for a pretty forgettable player. But this was commonplace in the Western conference in that era as teams tried to run the score up and beat tired teams because they believed the travel visiting teams had to do to get to their venues (when compared to the close proximity of Eastern conference matches) gave them a huge advantage. Road teams rarely lost during this era, unless the match up was heavily tilted in one direction. As a result, the statistical referencing from this era needs to be marked with a giant asterisk because coaches like Paul Westhead and Doug Moe (who coached Fat) employed a run and gun style and their teams averaged near and sometimes over 110ppg. This was a common tactic with Western Conference teams during that era, and only the team that perfected it (the Lakers) won titles. If you look at Western conference stats from the early 80s to the mid 90s many players (especially the PG position) have inflated stats.

Sometime in the 1990s more and more NBA teams started chartering flights and buying their own planes, there was a time not that long ago where teams flew commercial (delays, cancellations, cramped seating etc...) but with the travel disadvantage becoming minimized and training regiments and fitness levels being improved, it was no longer an easy task to run a tired team off the floor. When the Pistons and then later when the Bulls manhandled the Lakers in the 1991 finals the blueprint was beginning to change. Teams were starting to win with defense. Defense was no longer something you did in only the playoffs, it was beginning to be the main focus of many team philosophies. As a result numbers dipped, coaches like Pat Riley completely changed philosophies and a new era was ushered in. So much so that after Jordan left, many of the best players in the league were power forwards, a position previously held by team goon or low post specialist.

This is just one example of many and it is what makes cross-era comparisons tricky. It is also what makes disproving a past occurrence with 'facts' (stats) a false positive. Yes stats are facts, but they do not tell the whole story, basketball is more jazz music than math and even if you can read the sheet music it doesn't mean you can articulate the mood of the concert, the level of the performers and the difficulties they faced, the accuracy with which they performed etc...

let use stats to help paint a picture not frame it. And when we are ranking players in 'all time best' formats, lets not use stat comparisons as the final word, it is just wrong.

I'm a pretty big stats guy and I agree with this, even though the title had me psyched up to write some rant about people being too lazy to bother to understand what they do and don't do. It's hard to look at simple rating, w/s, WARP, +/-, etc. and do a strict comparison between two guys due to there really being no way to account for a guy's role and the context of his actions. Also, comparing guys from different eras can be hard due to the rise in offensive efficiency and decline in pace throughout the years as well as the three point shot opening up the middle for guards who can now get to the line at a much easier rate.

[catch24]

:applause:

[AlphaWolf24]

We as a posting community have become too reliant on certain bits of information to power home our collective points. What's worse is we use a lot of this data to discredit people, their achievements and historical record to make a statement http://donttrysohard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/tiger-woods-fist-pump_o_gifsoup-com.gif and to make us feel better about our own viewpoints. We are perverting information in the same way conspiracy theorists do to help sell our idea, while we are ignoring or undervaluing other key pieces of data and certain realities of the time.

Using stats to dissect the 1980's or even the 1990's to a certain degree without having lived through those times leads to false findings and misleading 'facts'. Lets call it the 'Fat Lever Fallacy'. Did you know that for a four year stretch in the 80s and 90s Fat Lever's averages hovered near 19ppg, 9rpg, 8apg? Pretty gaudy numbers for a pretty forgettable player. But this was commonplace in the Western conference in that era as teams tried to run the score up and beat tired teams because they believed the travel visiting teams had to do to get to their venues (when compared to the close proximity of Eastern conference matches) gave them a huge advantage. Road teams rarely lost during this era, unless the match up was heavily tilted in one direction. As a result, the statistical referencing from this era needs to be marked with a giant asterisk because coaches like Paul Westhead and Doug Moe (who coached Fat) employed a run and gun style and their teams averaged near and sometimes over 110ppg. This was a common tactic with Western Conference teams during that era, and only the team that perfected it (the Lakers) won titles. If you look at Western conference stats from the early 80s to the mid 90s many players (especially the PG position) have inflated stats.

Sometime in the 1990s more and more NBA teams started chartering flights and buying their own planes, there was a time not that long ago where teams flew commercial (delays, cancellations, cramped seating etc...) but with the travel disadvantage becoming minimized and training regiments and fitness levels being improved, it was no longer an easy task to run a tired team off the floor. When the Pistons and then later when the Bulls manhandled the Lakers in the 1991 finals the blueprint was beginning to change. Teams were starting to win with defense. Defense was no longer something you did in only the playoffs, it was beginning to be the main focus of many team philosophies. As a result numbers dipped, coaches like Pat Riley completely changed philosophies and a new era was ushered in. So much so that after Jordan left, many of the best players in the league were power forwards, a position previously held by team goon or low post specialist.

This is just one example of many and it is what makes cross-era comparisons tricky. It is also what makes disproving a past occurrence with 'facts' (stats) a false positive. Yes stats are facts, but they do not tell the whole story, basketball is more jazz music than math and even if you can read the sheet music it doesn't mean you can articulate the mood of the concert, the level of the performers and the difficulties they faced, the accuracy with which they performed etc...

let use stats to help paint a picture not frame it. And when we are ranking players in 'all time best' formats, lets not use stat comparisons as the final word, it is just wrong.

your post is a masterpiece......I think most fans view basketball and sports like this...


it's only a very small percentage of (mostly online) elitists self described "hardcore" fans that want to use stats to move their views....




well played ...

__________________________________________________ ____________

Edit :I suspect many people here will stay far far away from this thread:lol

[B]

I'm a pretty big stats guy and I agree with this, even though the title had me psyched up to write some rant about people being too lazy to bother to understand what they do and don't do. It's hard to look at simple rating, w/s, WARP, +/-, etc. and do a strict comparison between two guys due to there really being no way to account for a guy's role and the context of his actions. Also, comparing guys from different eras can be hard due to the rise in offensive efficiency and decline in pace throughout the years as well as the three point shot opening up the middle for guards who can now get to the line at a much easier rate. I'll continue that most advanced stats were not designed to compare players on different teams. They were designed to compare a players personal output in comparison to either himself or others on his team in the same role. Anytime I see somebody whipping out an advanced stat like PER or +/- to compare two players who played on different teams in different eras I cringe. It just shows their lack of understanding of the matrix and the purpose it was created for.

[iamgine]

The Trouble with Data and Statistics

1. It's not always accurate. An inaccurate data leads to false conclusion.

2. Not many people can understand and use stats for what it's measuring in a meaningful way.

3. A LOT of missing useful stats. i.e how many end of quarter prayer shots a player take per game. This could lead to the player seen as very inefficient even though he's not.

[B]

The Trouble with Data and Statistics

1. It's not always accurate. An inaccurate data leads to false conclusion.

2. Not many people can understand and use stats for what it's measuring in a meaningful way.

3. A LOT of missing useful stats. i.e how many end of quarter prayer shots a player take per game. This could lead to the player seen as very inefficient even though he's not.That's why teams keep their own stats. So they can throw away meaningless things like that last second length of the court heave, or fouls players commit on purpose that normally gets added to the stat lines seen online and used in advanced analysis.

[Dave3]

if we don't rely solely on stats, would Lebron still have a career?
Naw, no one would even know who he is...back to back MVP's tend to be ignored pretty often in the NBA, considering there are so many of them...

[AlphaWolf24]

Naw, no one would even know who he is...back to back MVP's tend to be ignored pretty often in the NBA, considering there are so many of them...


so he's a bigger Steve Nash then???

[Dave3]

so he's a bigger Steve Nash then???
I would reply, but I make it a point not to argue with people who try to argue 21 y/o Kobe>Shaq, or that Kobe>Jordan. Would love to explain it though if someone smarter asks.

[Friday]

Statistics are misleading but they have a point most of the time. If there were no statistics we would have a bunch of people stating a bunch of BS and their evidence would be because I watched them play. You already see that a lot with people talking about 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s players.

[jlauber]

Vegas bookies use VOLUMES of DATA and STATISTICS in their football betting lines...AND, where MILLIONS of DOLLARS are at stake.

Of course statistics CAN be mis-leading. So what? Every year major professional sports ADD more-and-more of them. Why?

[AlphaWolf24]

I would reply, but I make it a point not to argue with people who try to argue 21 y/o Kobe>Shaq, or that Kobe>Jordan. Would love to explain it though if someone smarter asks.


great so you won't argue with the majority of fans who already voted Kobe the greatest player of his generation by a landslide...


you will only argue with the very very very small percentage of online fans who are "hardcore" and use flawed stats....

great....you can have em'...we already know Kobe is the best.....and I speak for the people....





next

[AlphaWolf24]

Vegas bookies use VOLUMES of DATA and STATISTICS in their football betting lines...AND, where MILLIONS of DOLLARS are at stake.

Of course statistics CAN be mis-leading. So what? Every year major professional sports ADD more-and-more of them. Why?


because as Time continues to keep ticking we have numbers to help guide us when discussing (fill in random area )___________...But stats are hardly ever used as the main contributor when trying to pin point greatness...that's reserved for us watching and receiving how "said athlete".... captures our Imagination...and makes us feel.


No one ever watches a game and doesn't understand what they see....no one ever needs to go back and look at stats and get "informed" to find out who was the best.....Combat sports doesn't do that, either does team sports.

[ThaSwagg3r]

:applause: We have concluded that Dirk and Wade a better than LeBron, right JtotheIzzo?

http://cache.sharenxs.com/images/wz/cabb/aj/a-/af/be/TimDuncameGamOverLH.gif

[chips93]

its true that stats can be misleading, but thats only when people take them out of context, or only when they are used as a sole tool for evaluation.

id maintain that many stats can show us something that we didnt know, they can shed light on a player who doesnt grab your attention and is deserving of more praise.

you have to find a healthy middle ground with stats.

[bagelred]

They say that 73% of all statistics are made up.

[ThaSwagg3r]

They say that 73% of all statistics are made up.
So is there a 73% chance you made that up?

[G-train]

So is there a 73% chance you made that up?

That's the joke dummy.

[JtotheIzzo]

:applause: We have concluded that Dirk and Wade a better than LeBron, right JtotheIzzo?

http://cache.sharenxs.com/images/wz/cabb/aj/a-/af/be/TimDuncameGamOverLH.gif


I think in this year's final they proved them to be number 1 and 2, and LeBron 3, without a doubt. However, would LeBron have won once or twice with Shaq, or perhaps not at all? Would LeBron have lost in 06 like Dirk did?

LeBron was at the lowest point in his basketball career at any level during the finals, so obviously Dirk and Wade proved to be better, but would you start a team this year with Dirk or Wade instead of LeBron? That might be a bit foolish.

[Yung D-Will]

great so you won't argue with the majority of fans who already voted Kobe the greatest player of his generation by a landslide...


you will only argue with the very very very small percentage of online fans who are "hardcore" and use flawed stats....

great....you can have em'...we already know Kobe is the best.....and I speak for the people....





next

I wouldnt argue with them either cause most of the people who vote are casual fans who cant put achivements into context without being biased

[ThaSwagg3r]

However, would LeBron have won once or twice with Shaq, or perhaps not at all? Would LeBron have lost in 06 like Dirk did?
If LeBron were to replace Wade in 2006 would the Heat have still won the championship? Hell to the ****ing no. The Mavericks dared Dwyane Wade to beat them with his jump shot and guess what? He did, Wade dominated the Mavericks with his mid-range shot. LeBron James was an inferior shooter to Wade then. In '08-'09 LeBron became a better shooter than Wade but seasons prior Wade was the better shooter.



I think in this year's final they proved them to be number 1 and 2, and LeBron 3, without a doubt.

LeBron was at the lowest point in his basketball career at any level during the finals, so obviously Dirk and Wade proved to be better

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llxf61xRtf1qii6tmo1_400.gif



but would you start a team this year with Dirk or Wade instead of LeBron? That might be a bit foolish.
Maybe so but most people wouldn't take Dirk or Wade over Durant or Rose to start a franchise either. You won't find many people or at least many sane people that think Durant and Rose are currently better than Dirk and Wade.

[97 bulls]

We as a posting community have become too reliant on certain bits of information to power home our collective points. What's worse is we use a lot of this data to discredit people, their achievements and historical record to make a statement and to make us feel better about our own viewpoints. We are perverting information in the same way conspiracy theorists do to help sell our idea, while we are ignoring or undervaluing other key pieces of data and certain realities of the time.

Using stats to dissect the 1980's or even the 1990's to a certain degree without having lived through those times leads to false findings and misleading 'facts'. Lets call it the 'Fat Lever Fallacy'. Did you know that for a four year stretch in the 80s and 90s Fat Lever's averages hovered near 19ppg, 9rpg, 8apg? Pretty gaudy numbers for a pretty forgettable player. But this was commonplace in the Western conference in that era as teams tried to run the score up and beat tired teams because they believed the travel visiting teams had to do to get to their venues (when compared to the close proximity of Eastern conference matches) gave them a huge advantage. Road teams rarely lost during this era, unless the match up was heavily tilted in one direction. As a result, the statistical referencing from this era needs to be marked with a giant asterisk because coaches like Paul Westhead and Doug Moe (who coached Fat) employed a run and gun style and their teams averaged near and sometimes over 110ppg. This was a common tactic with Western Conference teams during that era, and only the team that perfected it (the Lakers) won titles. If you look at Western conference stats from the early 80s to the mid 90s many players (especially the PG position) have inflated stats.

Sometime in the 1990s more and more NBA teams started chartering flights and buying their own planes, there was a time not that long ago where teams flew commercial (delays, cancellations, cramped seating etc...) but with the travel disadvantage becoming minimized and training regiments and fitness levels being improved, it was no longer an easy task to run a tired team off the floor. When the Pistons and then later when the Bulls manhandled the Lakers in the 1991 finals the blueprint was beginning to change. Teams were starting to win with defense. Defense was no longer something you did in only the playoffs, it was beginning to be the main focus of many team philosophies. As a result numbers dipped, coaches like Pat Riley completely changed philosophies and a new era was ushered in. So much so that after Jordan left, many of the best players in the league were power forwards, a position previously held by team goon or low post specialist.

This is just one example of many and it is what makes cross-era comparisons tricky. It is also what makes disproving a past occurrence with 'facts' (stats) a false positive. Yes stats are facts, but they do not tell the whole story, basketball is more jazz music than math and even if you can read the sheet music it doesn't mean you can articulate the mood of the concert, the level of the performers and the difficulties they faced, the accuracy with which they performed etc...

let use stats to help paint a picture not frame it. And when we are ranking players in 'all time best' formats, lets not use stat comparisons as the final word, it is just wrong.
Great post bro. Its just so maddening to watch and read posters trying to compare players in different roles and from different eras.

Look at the stockton/thomas comparison. A bunch of people trying to go off stats. And more often than not, its the scoring stats that are most overrated. It was never stocktons job to try to score 25 ppg. His job was to get easy baskets for his teammates. And he was great at it.

And its most frustrating is when posters try to compare the statistics of the 80s to the 90s. Its obvious a lot of these posters don't know what they're talking about.

[97 bulls]

Vegas bookies use VOLUMES of DATA and STATISTICS in their football betting lines...AND, where MILLIONS of DOLLARS are at stake.

Of course statistics CAN be mis-leading. So what? Every year major professional sports ADD more-and-more of them. Why?
Im sure "so what" wouldn't be asked by you if 95% of your arguments for chamberlain didn't revolve around statistics.

[knickswin]

I hate it when I'm trying to discuss two players and it turns into a stat war. It's very boring to me.

[Dasher]

because as Time continues to keep ticking we have numbers to help guide us when discussing (fill in random area )___________...But stats are hardly ever used as the main contributor when trying to pin point greatness...that's reserved for us watching and receiving how "said athlete".... captures our Imagination...and makes us feel.


No one ever watches a game and doesn't understand what they see....no one ever needs to go back and look at stats and get "informed" to find out who was the best.....Combat sports doesn't do that, either does team sports.
Actually combat sports do use advanced stats to compare boxers. Part of Floyd Mayweather's legend will be his Compubox numbers.

[jlauber]

Im sure "so what" wouldn't be asked by you if 95% of your arguments for chamberlain didn't revolve around statistics.

You didn't have to know Chamberlain's statistics to understand just how dominant he was. All you had to do was WATCH the games. He was CLEARLY the most dominant player on the floor in the vast majority of games he played in. And in all phases of the game, too. He was easily the best scorer, most efficient shooter, the best rebounder, and he dominated at the defensive end in both man-to-man and lane defense. On top of all of that, there were many games in which he was the best passer, too. The fact was, he was the most physically gifted player of all time. He was among the strongest athletes in the world, among the highest leapers that ever played the game, and he was among the fastest to ever play the game, as well.

As for statistics...yes, they can be deceptive. Fred Anderson led the NL in ERA in 1917 with a 1.44 ERA. Was he a more dominant pitcher than Pedro Martinez was in his 2000 season? Martinez had a 1.74 ERA in 2000. However, Anderson's 1.44 ERA came in a league that averaged a 2.70 ERA. His nearest competitor was at 1.83, and there were a total of four pitchers that were under 2.00. Pedro's 1.74 ERA came in a league that averaged a 4.91 ERA. And his nearest competitor was Roger Clemens at 3.70.

And I have long maintained that Willie Mays' 52 HRs in 1965 was perhaps the greatest HR season in the "post-Ruth" era. Why? He led the entire MAJOR league leaders by 13 HRs (teammate Willie McCovey was next at 39...and the AL leader, Tony Conigliaro hit 32.) No other player, aside from Ruth, ever led the entire major league by that amount in a season.

And once again, you didn't need "statistics" to know just how dominant the '85 Bears defense was. True, they surrendered a lot of passing yards, but those that actually witnessed them play would tell you that most of them were meaningless yards late in games in which they had "called off the dogs." For the first three quarters, opposing QB's were ducking for cover before the ball was even snapped.

Same with Sandy Koufax. Hell, it was widely known throughout the league that he "tipped" his pitches. Yet, opposing batters were lucky to get a piece of the bat on the ball. And some "historians" will argue that Koufax's road ERA was nearly twice as high as his home ERA in his dominant seasons (from '62 thru '66.) How come his winning percentages were nearly identical on the road at home then? All you had to do was WATCH Koufax pitch. At his best, he was nearly unhittable.

How about Wilt's "statistics?" Throw out the actual mind-boggling numbers, and just COMPARE his stats to his peers. He won scoring titles by as much as +10.8 and even +18.8 ppg. He won rebounding titles by as much as +4.8 rpg. He won FG% titles by .162 and .157 margins (and he outshot entire leagues by as much as .244 and .271.) He was blocking shots at a unfathomable rates, too. AND, he won MULTIPLE statistical titles in the SAME seasons. He won the scoring AND rebounding titles in the same season, FIVE times. He won the scoring and FG% titles in the same season, FOUR time. He won the rebounding and FG% titles in the same season a staggering EIGHT times. He even won the rebounding, FG%, AND assist title in the same season. In fact, he led the NBA in scoring, rebounding, AND FG% in the same season, THREE times. He had an entire season in which he LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of 22 statistical categories, and had MANY seasons in which he was among the top-5 in 15+ statistical categories.

In any case, Wilt's dominance went well beyond "simple statistics." Having said that, however, he is the current holder of some 130 NBA records. No one else is even remotely close.

[97 bulls]

You didn't have to know Chamberlain's statistics to understand just how dominant he was. All you had to do was WATCH the games. He was CLEARLY the most dominant player on the floor in the vast majority of games he played in. And in all phases of the game, too. He was easily the best scorer, most efficient shooter, the best rebounder, and he dominated at the defensive end in both man-to-man and lane defense. On top of all of that, there were many games in which he was the best passer, too. The fact was, he was the most physically gifted player of all time. He was among the strongest athletes in the world, among the highest leapers that ever played the game, and he was among the fastest to ever play the game, as well.

As for statistics...yes, they can be deceptive. Fred Anderson led the NL in ERA in 1917 with a 1.44 ERA. Was he a more dominant pitcher than Pedro Martinez was in his 2000 season? Martinez had a 1.74 ERA in 2000. However, Anderson's 1.44 ERA came in a league that averaged a 2.70 ERA. His nearest competitor was at 1.83, and there were a total of four pitchers that were under 2.00. Pedro's 1.74 ERA came in a league that averaged a 4.91 ERA. And his nearest competitor was Roger Clemens at 3.70.

And I have long maintained that Willie Mays' 52 HRs in 1965 was perhaps the greatest HR season in the "post-Ruth" era. Why? He led the entire MAJOR league leaders by 13 HRs (teammate Willie McCovey was next at 39...and the AL leader, Tony Conigliaro hit 32.) No other player, aside from Ruth, ever led the entire major league by that amount in a season.

And once again, you didn't need "statistics" to know just how dominant the '85 Bears defense was. True, they surrendered a lot of passing yards, but those that actually witnessed them play would tell you that most of them were meaningless yards late in games in which they had "called off the dogs." For the first three quarters, opposing QB's were ducking for cover before the ball was even snapped.

Same with Sandy Koufax. Hell, it was widely known throughout the league that he "tipped" his pitches. Yet, opposing batters were lucky to get a piece of the bat on the ball. And some "historians" will argue that Koufax's road ERA was nearly twice as high as his home ERA in his dominant seasons (from '62 thru '66.) How come his winning percentages were nearly identical on the road at home then? All you had to do was WATCH Koufax pitch. At his best, he was nearly unhittable.

How about Wilt's "statistics?" Throw out the actual mind-boggling numbers, and just COMPARE his stats to his peers. He won scoring titles by as much as +10.8 and even +18.8 ppg. He won rebounding titles by as much as +4.8 rpg. He won FG% titles by .162 and .157 margins (and he outshot entire leagues by as much as .244 and .271.) He was blocking shots at a unfathomable rates, too. AND, he won MULTIPLE statistical titles in the SAME seasons. He won the scoring AND rebounding titles in the same season, FIVE times. He won the scoring and FG% titles in the same season, FOUR time. He won the rebounding and FG% titles in the same season a staggering EIGHT times. He even won the rebounding, FG%, AND assist title in the same season. In fact, he led the NBA in scoring, rebounding, AND FG% in the same season, THREE times. He had an entire season in which he LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of 22 statistical categories, and had MANY seasons in which he was among the top-5 in 15+ statistical categories.

In any case, Wilt's dominance went well beyond "simple statistics." Having said that, however, he is the current holder of some 130 NBA records. No one else is even remotely close.
Lol see what I mean?

The fact is that for all his dominance, wilt didn't win nearly as much as the other consensus top 5 players. Magic has 5, Jabaar has 6, Jordan has 6, and russell has what 11? The alltime greats lap wilt when it comes to the most important stat in sports...... winning.

[jlauber]

Lol see what I mean?

The fact is that for all his dominance, wilt didn't win nearly as much as the other consensus top 5 players. Magic has 5, Jabaar has 6, Jordan has 6, and russell has what 11? The alltime greats lap wilt when it comes to the most important stat in sports...... winning.

Hmmm...in a TEAM game. How many rings did Jordan win before he had Pippen and Grant? How many rings did Kareem have before Magic arrived? And we know that from day one, Russell played with the most loaded rosters in NBA history.

Was Jordan a "loser" in his '86 playoffs? He hung 63 points in a double OT LOSS (and in a series in which his TEAM was SWEPT.)

Using your logic, Jordan was a LOSER in NINE seasons; Bird in TEN; West and Oscar in TWELVE; Kareem in FOURTEEN; Shaq in FIFTEEN; and Hakeem in SIXTEEN seasons.

[jlauber]

Lol see what I mean?

The fact is that for all his dominance, wilt didn't win nearly as much as the other consensus top 5 players. Magic has 5, Jabaar has 6, Jordan has 6, and russell has what 11? The alltime greats lap wilt when it comes to the most important stat in sports...... winning.

Players with 60+ win seasons...

Kareem with eight.
Bird with six.
Magic with five.
MJ with five.
Wilt with four.
Duncan with four.
Russell with three.
Shaq with three.
Hakeem with zero.

[RRR3]

Players with 60+ win seasons...

Kareem with eight.
Bird with six.
Magic with five.
MJ with five.
Wilt with four.
Duncan with four.
Russell with three.
Shaq with three.
Hakeem with zero.

Mo Williams played on two 60+ win teams. Is he better than Hakeem? :facepalm

[jlauber]

Mo Williams played on two 60+ win teams. Is he better than Hakeem? :facepalm

I didn't know that Mo Williams was considered a consensus top-5 player of all-time, either.

:facepalm :facepalm

[97 bulls]

Players with 60+ win seasons...

Kareem with eight.
Bird with six.
Magic with five.
MJ with five.
Wilt with four.
Duncan with four.
Russell with three.
Shaq with three.
Hakeem with zero.
Lol...ok winning championships.

[jlauber]

Lol...ok winning championships.

Once again...TEAM game. I have mentioned it before, but just a couple of quick examples...

In Wilt's 59-69 playoffs, he averaged 33.2 ppg, 25.8 rpg, and shot .496 (in a league that shot .410.) His teammates collectively shot .380 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 60-61 playoffs, he averaged 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shot .469 (in a league that shot .415.) His teammates collectively shot .332 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 61-62 playoffs, he averaged 35 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .467 (in a league that shot .426.) His teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 63-64 playoffs, he averaged 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and shot .543 (in a league that shot .433.) His teammates collective shot .382 in that post-season.

In Chamberlain's 65-66 playoffs, he averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 (in a league that shot .433.) His teammates collectively shot .352.

I could go thru every one of his post-seasons, but in any case, he seldom had much help...even when he had some good rosters.

[97 bulls]

Once again...TEAM game. I have mentioned it before, but just as a couple of quick examples...

In Wilt's 60-61 playoffs, he averaged 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shot .469 (in a league that shot .415.) His teammates collectively shot .332 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 61-62 playoffs, he averaged 35 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .467 (in a league that shot .426.) His teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 63-64 playoffs, he averaged 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and shot .543 (in a league that shot .433.) His teammates collective shot .382 in that post-season.

In Chamberlain's 65-66 playoffs, he averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 (in a league that shot .433.) His teammates collectively shot .352.

I could go thru every one of his post-seasons, but in any case, he seldom had much help...even when he had some good rosters.
Hey....I'm the biggest proponant of the fact that no single player wins alone. Which goes to show just how meaningless your stats are. His teams didn't win.

A large portion of why these players are ranked so highly is because of championships. Championships give credibility to those gaudy stats. Wilt just doesn't measure up.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Lol see what I mean?

The fact is that for all his dominance, wilt didn't win nearly as much as the other consensus top 5 players. Magic has 5, Jabaar has 6, Jordan has 6, and russell has what 11? The alltime greats lap wilt when it comes to the most important stat in sports...... winning.

Wilt was a playoff choker. He was not "sandwiched out of plays". If he was, where are the assists those years? Wilt missed 1562 shots in the 61-62 season; Shaq = took 1594 shots in 94-95...and won a scoring title. Wilt missed 1562 shots in a season...Shaq has 3 career seasons taking more than 1562 shots and he was #2, #1, and #1 in ppg. It would have been 3 scoring titles, but David Robinson pulled a Wilt and jacked up 38 shots to close out the 93-94 season to selfishly win the scoring title over Shaq...something Shaq refused to do in 99 when he needed 40 pts to win the scoring title over Iverson, and took 13 shots. Wilt was a joke and doesn't belong in the same class as Russell, Kareem, Jordan, Bird and Magic.

[jlauber]

Hey....I'm the biggest proponant of the fact that no single player wins alone. Which goes to show just how meaningless your stats are. His teams didn't win.

A large portion of why these players are ranked so highly is because of championships. Championships give credibility to those gaudy stats. Wilt just doesn't measure up.

Championships are TEAM accomplishments.

BTW, do you regard Russell as the GOAT then?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Some proof of Wilts overrated WEAK-ASS defense? Go to youtube and in the search-engine type "1964 Nba finals G4 celtics@warriors 1/4"....at 3:15, Bill Russell gets the ball and backs Wilt down for the layup with no resistance at all!!! Russell misses the layup but tips it in with wilt chamberlain watching helplessly!!! WASNT THAT THE NBA FINALS? Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg 22.3 rpg in '64 yet was owned by Russell, as the footage shows. Just imagine Wilt guarding Shaq? I'm still waiting to see a Wilt highlight...I have seen plenty of Wilt footage....just no highlights :roll:

Check out that pathetic footage, AND THATS THE NBA FINALS!

[jlauber]

Wilt was a playoff choker. He was not "sandwiched out of plays". If he was, where are the assists those years? Wilt missed 1562 shots in the 61-62 season; Shaq = took 1594 shots in 94-95...and won a scoring title. Wilt missed 1562 shots in a season...Shaq has 3 career seasons taking more than 1562 shots and he was #2, #1, and #1 in ppg. It would have been 3 scoring titles, but David Robinson pulled a Wilt and jacked up 38 shots to close out the 93-94 season to selfishly win the scoring title over Shaq...something Shaq refused to do in 99 when he needed 40 pts to win the scoring title over Iverson, and took 13 shots. Wilt was a joke and doesn't belong in the same class as Russell, Kareem, Jordan, Bird and Magic.


Shaq won ten FG% titles, in 19 seasons. Chamberlain won nine in his 14 seasons, including two in his LAST two seasons (and in his LAST season he shot .727, which is a record that will probably never be approached.)

Ok, how about this, though. Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem won four scoring titles...COMBINED...in their collective 57 seasons in the NBA. Wilt won SEVEN in his 14. Furthermore, those three COMBINED for FOUR rebounding titles. Meanwhile Chamberlain won ELEVEN. Wilt also won an ASSIST title...something that all three of those guys, COMBINED, NEVER accomplished.

[97 bulls]

Championships are TEAM accomplishments.

BTW, do you regard Russell as the GOAT then?
Again, you get no argument from me Jlauber. But it is a fact that championships are the most important factor for comparing players. Look at john stockton and magic johnson. Their statistics are very similar. Magic is the better rebounder, but stockton is the better defender. What seperates them most is championships.

James Worthy was at best a 19/5/3 guy. In a league that stressed scoring. And a solid defender. And was never the best player on his team. Why is he in the hall? 3 championships.

[97 bulls]

Championships are TEAM accomplishments.

BTW, do you regard Russell as the GOAT then?
No. Its jordan. Because he's in the discussion for any part of what makes a player great. And top 3 at that. You can't say that for any other player

[jlauber]

Some proof of Wilts overrated WEAK-ASS defense? Go to youtube and in the search-engine type "1964 Nba finals G4 celtics@warriors 1/4"....at 3:15, Bill Russell gets the ball and backs Wilt down for the layup with no resistance at all!!! Russell misses the layup but tips it in with wilt chamberlain watching helplessly!!! WASNT THAT THE NBA FINALS? Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg 22.3 rpg in '64 yet was owned by Russell, as the footage shows. Just imagine Wilt guarding Shaq? I'm still waiting to see a Wilt highlight...I have seen plenty of Wilt footage....just no highlights :roll:

Check out that pathetic footage, AND THATS THE NBA FINALS!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

[RRR3]

Again, you get no argument from me Jlauber. But it is a fact that championships are the most important factor for comparing players. Look at john stockton and magic johnson. Their statistics are very similar. Magic is the better rebounder, but stockton is the better defender. What seperates them most is championships.

James Worthy was at best a 19/5/3 guy. In a league that stressed scoring. And a solid defender. And was never the best player on his team. Why is he in the hall? 3 championships.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Exposing Wilts defense...or lack of it, to be more accurate. The 1962 Sixers allowed 122.7 ppg...LAST in the nba....Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that yr; 1963 warriors allowed 120.6 ppg...LAST in the nba...Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg that yr. In Wilts 2 highest scoring yrs, his teams were DEAD LAST in ppg allowed :oldlol:

My question is this: was Wilt spiking blocked shots into the opponents basket? Allowing 122.7 ppg and 120.6 ppg is not exactly shut-down defense considering stat-boy Wilt knew they didnt keep individual defensive stats, you know, where his priorities were....

[jlauber]

Exposing Wilts defense...or lack of it, to be more accurate. The 1962 Sixers allowed 122.7 ppg...LAST in the nba....Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that yr; 1963 warriors allowed 120.6 ppg...LAST in the nba...Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg that yr. In Wilts 2 highest scoring yrs, his teams were DEAD LAST in ppg allowed :oldlol:

My question is this: was Wilt spiking blocked shots into the opponents basket? Allowing 122.7 ppg and 120.6 ppg is not exactly shut-down defense considering stat-boy Wilt knew they didnt keep individual defensive stats, you know, where his priorities were....

DEFENSIVE WIN-SHARES...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html

(BTW, that last link is cumulative...so Wilt's average per season was actually SECOND all-time.)

[97 bulls]

W
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

What did I say that was wrong? They are very similar statistically.

[97 bulls]

Exposing Wilts defense...or lack of it, to be more accurate. The 1962 Sixers allowed 122.7 ppg...LAST in the nba....Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that yr; 1963 warriors allowed 120.6 ppg...LAST in the nba...Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg that yr. In Wilts 2 highest scoring yrs, his teams were DEAD LAST in ppg allowed :oldlol:

My question is this: was Wilt spiking blocked shots into the opponents basket? Allowing 122.7 ppg and 120.6 ppg is not exactly shut-down defense considering stat-boy Wilt knew they didnt keep individual defensive stats, you know, where his priorities were....
Wow great post. Shows that stats are misleading.

[97 bulls]

DEFENSIVE WIN-SHARES...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html

(BTW, that last link is cumulative...so Wilt's average per season was actually SECOND all-time.)
So what your implying is that it was never wilts fault. Only his teammates

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Wow great post. Shows that stats are misleading.

Indeed. His defensive impact is grossly overrated, especially on this forum.

Here are 2 games within a span of 5 days that truly define Wilt....

March 2nd, 1962 = Wilt scores 100 pts vs the bottom-feeding, New york Knicks

March 7th, 1962= Celtics beat Sixers 153-102...Wilt destroyed by 51 pts vs a GOOD team. That seems about right...dominate the cupcakes, get dominated by the Elite(the Wilt way).

[97 bulls]

Indeed. His defensive impact is grossly overrated, especially on this forum.

Here are 2 games within a span of 5 days that truly define Wilt....

March 2nd, 1962 = Wilt scores 100 pts vs the bottom-feeding, New york Knicks

March 7th, 1962= Celtics beat Sixers 153-102...Wilt destroyed by 51 pts vs a GOOD team. That seems about right...dominate the cupcakes, get dominated by the Elite(the Wilt way).
Just from a few of the posts I've seen from you, I think chamberlains biggest weakness is that he had a low IQ. I'm sure there are a lot of basketball players could've shot jacked their way into the record books. But at the expense of winning. Jordan was on that same path.

[jlauber]

Just from a few of the posts I've seen from you, I think chamberlains biggest weakness is that he had a low IQ. I'm sure there are a lot of basketball players could've shot jacked their way into the record books. But at the expense of winning. Jordan was on that same path.

Chamberlain could have scored FAR more points. The fact that he didn't was based primarily on FINALLY getting some quality teammates. Rick Barry won the NBA scoring title in the 66-67 season, at 35.6 ppg, and afterwards he "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win it. Virtually EVERYONE in the league KNEW that had Wilt wanted it, he would have got it. Of course, Wilt had the HIGH game in EVERY season in the decade of the 60's, too. One of the "what-if" seasons that we could have seen from Chamberlain came in his 69-70 season (his 11th.) His new coach, Joe Mullaney, asked that Wilt become the focal point of the offense in that season. And in his first nine games, Chamberlain hung games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points, and was averaging 32.2 ppg on close to 60% shooting in those nine games. Unfortunately, he shredded his knee in that ninth game, and was never quite the same afterwards.

And once again, where do you get a "low IQ" from? Chamberlain was SINGLE-HANDEDLY carrying inept rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics. And he was the ONLY one that actual knocked them off in the decade of the 60's, as well.

Kuniva-Dickwad cites TWO games from Wilt's 61-62 season. How about his play in the playoffs? In the clinching game five, of a best-of-five series, he put up a 56-35 game. Then, he took that same basic LAST-PLACE roster that he inherited in his rookie season, to a game seven, two-point loss, against Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. In game two of that series, and playing against an ELITE Russell, all Wilt did was outscore Russell, 42-9, and outrebound Russell, 37-20...and the result? A 113-106 win. THAT was how bad Chamberlain's rosters were. He had to have MONUMENTAL games for his team's to win. Oh, and BTW, in the entire 61-62 playoffs, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354. Now, you tell me just how Wilt got THAT team to a game seven, two-point loss against that HOF-laden Celtic squad?

And BTW, Wilt also hung a 50-35 game against Russell in a must-win game five of the '60 ECF's, and in a 128-107 win!

As for that 51 point loss in the '62 season. How about Wilt and his Sixers in the '67 season? In game five of that season, Wilt led his Sixers to a 138-96 win over Russell's Celtics. And, unlike Wilt's inept clowns of that '62 season, Russell's '67 Celtics went 60-21. THEN, Chamberlain took his 68-13 team to a near SWEEP of Russell's Celtics. Had Boston not eked out a 121-117 win in Boston in game four, they would have swept them. In game five, they overcame a 17 point first period deficit, and actually led 131-104 late, en route to a 140-116 rout of Russell's Celtics. And in that game all Wilt did was outscore Russell, 29-4; outshoot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassist Russell, 13-7; and outrebound Russell, 36-21.

[jlauber]

So what your implying is that it was never wilts fault. Only his teammates

You tell me...


Once again...TEAM game. I have mentioned it before, but just a couple of quick examples...

In Wilt's 59-69 playoffs, he averaged 33.2 ppg, 25.8 rpg, and shot .496 (in a league that shot .410.) His teammates collectively shot .380 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 60-61 playoffs, he averaged 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shot .469 (in a league that shot .415.) His teammates collectively shot .332 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 61-62 playoffs, he averaged 35 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .467 (in a league that shot .426.) His teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 63-64 playoffs, he averaged 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and shot .543 (in a league that shot .433.) His teammates collective shot .382 in that post-season.

In Chamberlain's 65-66 playoffs, he averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 (in a league that shot .433.) His teammates collectively shot .352.

I could go thru every one of his post-seasons, but in any case, he seldom had much help...even when he had some good rosters.

[Sarcastic]

So what your implying is that it was never wilts fault. Only his teammates

Do you understand the concept of "team game"?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

All I see is incoherent rambling. Bill Russell is laughing at Wilts passing. Check the facts. Wilt averaged 673 assists in 7559 minutes in the playoffs. Russell averaged 770 assists in 7497 minutes in the playoffs.

Russell had 97 more assists than Wilt in the playoffs...in 62 fewer minutes! One more time, Wilt played for numbers AND he got them. Russell played for letters...and he got them....as in W's....

[97 bulls]

Do you understand the concept of "team game"?
Yep. Do you?

[jlauber]

Do you understand the concept of "team game"?

It always amazed me how Wilt was blamed for being a selfish "stats-padder"...when it was his COACHES who asked him to shoot. My god, judging by just how horribly they shot in those "stats-padding" seasons, if anything, Wilt's COACHES should have DEMANDED that his teammates pass the ball to Wilt on EVERY possession. He was shooting over 50%, and they were struggling to shoot 40%.

And was any other "great" player been asked to change their game more than Wilt? He was a high volume scorer early on. Then he was asked to slightly cut back his shooting in the mid-60's. Then he was asked to be a super efficient facilitator in the '67 thru '69 seasons. Then, his new coach asked him to shoot more in the '70 season, and he was leading the league in scoring (and on about 60% shooting) when he sustained a horrific knee injury. Then, in the 70's, his coach asked that he concentrate on defense, rebounding, and outlet passing (and in which he ignited a devastating fast-break.)

And he did all that, while playing more minutes per game than anyone else in NBA history. AND, he played on TWELVE "winning" teams, as well as TWELVE teams that made it to the Conference Finals; Six of which made it to the Finals. He played on FOUR teams with the best record in the league. He played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games. And he anchored two title-winning teams that went 68-13 and 69-13 (including 33 straight wins.)

And yet, he was considered a selfish, shot-jacking, "stats-padder."

[RRR3]

W

What did I say that was wrong? They are very similar statistically.
:roll: Yep, it's not like Magic averaged 6 and a half more PPG and more than THREE TIMES the rebounds Stockton did.

[97 bulls]

It always amazed me how Wilt was blamed for being a selfish "stats-padder"...when it was his COACHES who asked him to shoot. My god, judging by just how horribly they shot in those "stats-padding" seasons, if anything, Wilt's COACHES should have DEMANDED that his teammates pass the ball to Wilt on EVERY possession. He was shooting over 50%, and they were struggling to shoot 40%.
But yet they weren't winning. And to be honest, his teammates didn't shoot bad relative to the time they played. Shootiing mid 30% was the norm. And he seemed to have some of the better teams throughout the 60s.

And was any other "great" player been asked to change their game more than Wilt? He was a high volume scorer early on. Then he was asked to slightly cut back his shooting in the mid-60's. Then he was asked to be a super efficient facilitator in the '67 thru '69 seasons. Then, his new coach asked him to shoot more in the '70 season, and he was leading the league in scoring (and on about 60% shooting) when he sustained a horrific knee injury. Then, in the 70's, his coach asked that he concentrate on defense, rebounding, and outlet passing (and in which he ignited a devastating fast-break.)

And he did all that, while playing more minutes per game than anyone else in NBA history. AND, he played on TWELVE "winning" teams, as well as TWELVE teams that made it to the Conference Finals; Six of which made it to the Finals. He played on FOUR teams with the best record in the league. He played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games. And he anchored two title-winning teams that went 68-13 and 69-13 (including 33 straight wins.)

And yet, he was considered a selfish, shot-jacking, "stats-padder."
Very interesting. But still J, stats don't tell the whole story. HE DIDN'T WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS at a rate the other greats did. And it wasn't because his teams were bad. It mayve been his coaches. Cuz when you have one guy taking as many shots as your next 5 players, you don't win. Then you factor in that he just couldn't hit fts. Sure he made a lot as you love to point out. But not at an efficient level.

[97 bulls]

:roll: Yep, it's not like Magic averaged 6 and a half more PPG and more than THREE TIMES the rebounds Stockton did.
My god why do people say stuff like this. Stockton in the 80s avg about 16-17 ppg. Magic about 19. And in a higher tempo offense. Magic was a horrible defender. Stockton was a good defender. Stockton also avg more assists than magic. Magic has the rings and mvps.

Did you read the OP? If your gonna look at their stats, but look at their situations too.

[jlauber]

Very interesting. But still J, stats don't tell the whole story. HE DIDN'T WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS at a rate the other greats did. And it wasn't because his teams were bad. It mayve been his coaches. Cuz when you have one guy taking as many shots as your next 5 players, you don't win. Then you factor in that he just couldn't hit fts. Sure he made a lot as you love to point out. But not at an efficient level.



But yet they weren't winning. And to be honest, his teammates didn't shoot bad relative to the time they played. Shootiing mid 30% was the norm. And he seemed to have some of the better teams throughout the 60s.



First of all, it was NOT the norm for teams to be shooting in the 30 percent range in the 60's. The league shot between .410 to .446 in that decade.

Secondly, Wilt had some HORRIBLE rosters in the 60's. People forget that he came to a LAST PLACE team, and in which the rosters got WORSE as each season passed. Yet, he could get them to the Conference Finals, and even into the Finals in '64. My god, his coach conducted a pre-season scrimmage, without Wilt, before that 63-64 season, and a group of scrubs beat that Warrior roster.

And, yes, Wilt played on some good teams in the '60's. His '67 76er team, which was healthy all season, just annihilated the league en route to a dominating title. BUT, that same roster was decimated by injuries in the '68 post-season, or they surely would have easily repeated. His '66 team had the best record in the league, but, while Wilt played brilliantly in that post-season, his teammates were awful and shot a combined .352. His '69 Laker team had an incompetent coach, or they probably would have won as well.

And, of course, NO ONE brings up the FACT that Wilt battled the great Celtic Dynasty in TEN of his 14 seasons. He nearly beat them on four occasions (losing game seven's by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points), and he crushed them in '67. And then Chamberlain faced the great '70 Knick team, and their FOUR HOFers. Then, he had to battle Kareem and Oscar's 66-16 Bucks in the '71 playoffs, without BOTH West and Baylor. Of course, he led his '72 Lakers past that same 63-19 Buck team the very next year, as well as a dominating Finals win over the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers. And, in Wilt's LAST season, he took his 60-22 team to yet another Finals, where they lost four close games (all decided in the last minute) to a NY team that had SIX HOFers.

[Sarcastic]

Yep. Do you?

So why would you blame the "team's" results on "one player"?

[Math2]

First of all, it was NOT the norm for teams to be shooting in the 30 percent range in the 60's. The league shot between .410 to .446 in that decade.

Secondly, Wilt had some HORRIBLE rosters in the 60's. People forget that he came to a LAST PLACE team, and in which the rosters got WORSE as each season passed. Yet, he could get them to the Conference Finals, and even into the Finals in '64. My god, his coach conducted a pre-season scrimmage, without Wilt, before that 63-64 season, and a group of scrubs beat that Warrior roster.

And, yes, Wilt played on some good teams in the '60's. His '67 76er team, which was healthy all season, just annihilated the league en route to a dominating title. BUT, that same roster was decimated by injuries in the '68 post-season, or they surely would have easily repeated. His '66 team had the best record in the league, but, while Wilt played brilliantly in that post-season, his teammates were awful and shot a combined .352. His '69 Laker team had an incompetent coach, or they probably would have won as well.

And, of course, NO ONE brings up the FACT that Wilt battled the great Celtic Dynasty in TEN of his 14 seasons. He nearly beat them on four occasions (losing game seven's by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points), and he crushed them in '67. And then Chamberlain faced the great '70 Knick team, and their FOUR HOFers. Then, he had to battle Kareem and Oscar's 66-16 Bucks in the '71 playoffs, without BOTH West and Baylor. Of course, he led his '72 Lakers past that same 63-19 Buck team the very next year, as well as a dominating Finals win over the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers. And, in Wilt's LAST season, he took his 60-22 team to yet another Finals, where they lost four close games (all decided in the last minute) to a NY team that had SIX HOFers.

lololol...your so funny. Crappy rosters? That's a total joke. Did he win most of the time? No. Was he close? Yes. Should we give him a championship trophy because he was close? No. Is is his fault? Yes.

[jlauber]

lololol...your so funny. Crappy rosters? That's a total joke. Did he win most of the time? No. Was he close? Yes. Should we give him a championship trophy because he was close? No. Is is his fault? Yes.

THAT is a total joke. Blaming WILT when he was CLEARLY the best player on the floor in the vast majority of his post-season games.

Once again...basketball is a TEAM game. The best TEAM usually wins, even if it doesn't have the best PLAYER.

[Math2]

THAT is a total joke. Blaming WILT when he was CLEARLY the best player on the floor in the vast majority of his post-season games.

Once again...basketball is a TEAM game. The best TEAM usually wins, even if it doesn't have the best PLAYER.

And the best player did win pretty much every year. 11 Times to be exact. As did the best team.

[jlauber]

All I see is incoherent rambling. Bill Russell is laughing at Wilts passing. Check the facts. Wilt averaged 673 assists in 7559 minutes in the playoffs. Russell averaged 770 assists in 7497 minutes in the playoffs.

Russell had 97 more assists than Wilt in the playoffs...in 62 fewer minutes! One more time, Wilt played for numbers AND he got them. Russell played for letters...and he got them....as in W's....

Russell and Wilt played in the league together for 10 seasons. In those ten years, ...

Russell played in 135 playoff games. In those games, he averaged 16.5 ppg, 24.7 rpg, 5.0 apg, and shot .441 from the field.

Wilt played in 98 playoff games. In those games, he averaged 26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 4.4 apg, and shot .520 from the field.

[jlauber]

And the best player did win pretty much every year. 11 Times to be exact. As did the best team.

Interesting how the "best player" was just CRUSHED by the "loser" Wilt in the '67 ECF's. In fact, Wilt's TEAM was four points away from SWEEPING the "best player" and the "best team" that season. How did that happen? How could the "best player" and playing on the "best team" be so thoroughly dominated in BOTH respects?

[Math2]

Russell and Wilt played in the league together for 10 seasons. In those ten years, ...

Russell played in 135 playoff games. In those games, he averaged 16.5 ppg, 24.7 rpg, 5.0 apg, and shot .441 from the field.

Wilt played in 98 playoff games. In those games, he averaged 26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 4.4 apg, and shot .520 from the field.

Wait...let's think a sec. you realize Chamberlain played 3 more minutes per game, right? It's a virtual rebounding wash adjusted for minutes.

[Math2]

Interesting how the "best player" was just CRUSHED by the "loser" Wilt in the '67 ECF's. In fact, Wilt's TEAM was four points away from SWEEPING the "best player" and the "best team" that season. How did that happen? How could the "best player" and playing on the "best team" be so thoroughly dominated in BOTH respects?

One year. That's all it was. Once. Russell won champs every other year, except when he was injured one. Wilt won twice and was healthy most of his career. (1970 is an exception)

[jlauber]

Wait...let's think a sec. you realize Chamberlain played 3 more minutes per game, right? It's a virtual rebounding wash adjusted for minutes.

You realize that Russell and Wilt played nearly the same amount of minutes in their H2H games in the post-season, and Wilt not only outrebounded him in EVERY one of their EIGHT series, there were some in which he just BURIED Russell. He had H2H post-season margins of 32-23, 30-25, and 30-26.

[Math2]

You realize that Russell and Wilt played nearly the same amount of minutes in their H2H games in the post-season, and Wilt not only outrebounded him in EVERY one of their EIGHT series, there were some in which he just BURIED Russell. He had H2H post-season margins of 32-23, 30-25, and 30-26.

32-23 is the only "burial". 5 and 4 boards? That's one small margin.
ANd #s aren't everything...Rings?

[jlauber]

One year. That's all it was. Once. Russell won champs every other year, except when he was injured one. Wilt won twice and was healthy most of his career. (1970 is an exception)

Russell's CELTICS won those championships.

[Math2]

Russell's CELTICS won those championships.
They wouldn't have won without the team mentality, and all out desire of Russell. But his team was big...as was Wilts. HE just didn't utilize it.

[97 bulls]

So why would you blame the "team's" results on "one player"?
I'm not honestly. I'm saying stats don't tell the whole story. Wilt teammates didn't shoot any worse than what was the norm for that era. Wilt just didn't win. It sounds to me based on jlaubers posts and going back and checking, that his team was good enough, but his coaches just didn't utilize the team concept. And wilt was a terrible ft shooter which is what cost them about 4 championships.

[RRR3]

I'm not honestly. I'm saying stats don't tell the whole story. Wilt teammates didn't shoot any worse than what was the norm for that era. Wilt just didn't win. It sounds to me based on jlaubers posts and going back and checking, that his team was good enough, but his coaches just didn't utilize the team concept. And wilt was a terrible ft shooter which is what cost them about 4 championships.

Bill Russell was an awful ft shooter too.

[jlauber]

I'm not honestly. I'm saying stats don't tell the whole story. Wilt teammates didn't shoot any worse than what was the norm for that era. Wilt just didn't win. It sounds to me based on jlaubers posts and going back and checking, that his team was good enough, but his coaches just didn't utilize the team concept. And wilt was a terrible ft shooter which is what cost them about 4 championships.

Using FT shooting, MJ blew that double-OT loss against the Celtics in the '86 playoffs when he scored 63 points. Had he not missed two FTs, the Bulls would have won that game (not that it would have made much of a difference overall.)

If we replace Chamberlain, and his relatively poor FT shooting, with a LESSOR player (which would certainly have been the case with virtually anyone else), would his TEAM's have won then? Chamberlain was POUNDING his opposing teams. He was routinely scoring scoring 30-40 ppg and getting 25-30 rpg, as well as severely limiting them on the defensive end.

Once again, take a look at how Wilt's teammates performed in several of his early post-seasons...


In Wilt's 59-69 playoffs, he averaged 33.2 ppg, 25.8 rpg, and shot .496 (in a league that shot .410.) His teammates collectively shot .380 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 60-61 playoffs, he averaged 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shot .469 (in a league that shot .415.) His teammates collectively shot .332 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 61-62 playoffs, he averaged 35 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .467 (in a league that shot .426.) His teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season.

In Wilt's 63-64 playoffs, he averaged 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and shot .543 (in a league that shot .433.) His teammates collective shot .382 in that post-season.

In Chamberlain's 65-66 playoffs, he averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 (in a league that shot .433.) His teammates collectively shot .352.



Now, you are telling me that it was WILT's fault that those TEAM's did not win?

[97 bulls]

Using FT shooting, MJ blew that double-OT loss against the Celtics in the '86 playoffs when he scored 63 points. Had he not missed two FTs, the Bulls would have won that game (not that it would have made much of a difference overall.)

If we replace Chamberlain, and his relatively poor FT shooting, with a LESSOR player (which would certainly have been the case with virtually anyone else), would his TEAM's have won then? Chamberlain was POUNDING his opposing teams. He was routinely scoring scoring 30-40 ppg and getting 25-30 rpg, as well as severely limiting them on the defensive end.

Once again, take a look at how Wilt's teammates performed in several of his early post-seasons...



Now, you are telling me that it was WILT's fault that those TEAM's did not win?
No offense J. But where are you getting your info from?

[jlauber]

No offense J. But where are you getting your info from?

What info are you questioning?

Basketball-reference has Wilt's playoff team numbers. Subtract Wilt's from his teammates, and you can get how they performed.

[97 bulls]

What info are you questioning?

Basketball-reference has Wilt's playoff team numbers. Subtract Wilt's from his teammates, and you can get how they performed.
Ok, I see what you did.

Let me ask you a question...... why did wilts numbers drop along with his teammates?

[jlauber]

Ok, I see what you did.

Let me ask you a question...... why did wilts numbers drop along with his teammates?

Aside from his unfathomable '62 regular season numbers, Wilt's numbers dropped very little. And there were several reasons for those declines. One, believe-it-or-not, the "pace" of the game declined in the post-seasons. For example, in Wilt's '62 season, during the regular season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg on .426 shooting. In the playoffs, the numbers dropped to 112.6 on .411 shooting.

Secondly...and I have mentioned this MANY times...Wilt faced a HOF center in nearly TWO-THIRDS of his 160 post-season games (and All-Stars in others.) Not only that, but he faced the greatest defensive center in nearly ONE-THIRD of them (Russell in 49 games.) On top of Russell's 49 games, he faced Reed in 18 games (including seven games in Reed's first-team all defensive season of '70); Thurmond (who may have been the best one-on-one defensive center of all-time) in 17 games; Kareem in 11 games; Lucas (as a center) in 10 games (and another 8 games as a PF); and Bellamy in six games. Then add players like five-time all-star Zelmo Beaty (seven games); HOFer and all-star Wayne Embry 11 games; three-time all-star Red Kerr in 11 games; and HOFer Clyde Lovellette in a couple of games in his last season.

Add those games up...not many against NON-HOFers or All-Stars are there?

And, while his FG% dropped slightly from a career .540 to .522, that is no more of a drop than most of the "greats." MJ went from .497 to .487. Bird went from .496 to .472. Shaq from .582 to .563. And Kareem from .559 to .533. And keep in mind that Wilt played in league's with MUCH LOWER overall FG%'s, too.

Furthermore, Wilt routinely held his opposing centers, (and here again, most of those games were against HOFers) to WAY BELOW their normal FG%'s. He faced Thurmond in three playoff series, and outshot Nate in each, .560 to .343, .500 to .398, and .550 to .392. Reed shot .507 in the '70 regular season, and against Wilt in '70, he shot .483. Bellamy shot .541 in the '68 regular season, and against Wilt in the '68 playoffs, he shot .421. Russell shot .454 in the '67 regular season, but against Wilt in the '67 ECF's, he only shot .358. Kareem shot .577 in the '71 regular season, and against Wilt in the '71 WCF's, he only shot .481. And Kareem shot .574 in the '72 regular season, but only .457 against Wilt in the '72 WCF's (and only .414 over the course of the last four games of that six game series.)

Finally, Wilt outrebounded ALL of them. Chamberlain played in 29 post-season series, and he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of them. In fact, he was usually CRUSHING his opposing centers. Interesting too, was the fact that Russell is the all-time career post-season rebounding leader at 24.9 rpg...BUT, Chamberlain outrebounded him in ALL eight of their H2H post-season series. And, in fact, when Russell retired in '69, and with his 24.9 rpg mark...Wilt was at 26.3 rpg in HIS post-season career at the time. Wilt's numbers declined slightly after that, and that is why he was "only" at 24.5 in his post-season career...which was still nearly two more per game than his regular season career average.

[ThaRegul8r]

Using FT shooting, MJ blew that double-OT loss against the Celtics in the '86 playoffs when he scored 63 points. Had he not missed two FTs, the Bulls would have won that game (not that it would have made much of a difference overall.)

In all his magnificence, Jordan still proved he is only human. After dropping two pressure-packed free throws to send the game into overtime, Jordan misfired on a 15-footer with three seconds left in the first overtime. That shot would have finished off the Celtics and brought a richly deserved triumph to the Bulls.

If Jordan hit that shot, the Bulls would have won the game. That was independent of his teammates and solely within his control. The truth is the truth. Though I wonder if anyone would be talking about that game the way they do if Jordan hit that shot, and thus didn't score a playoff-record 63 points. I wonder.

[jlauber]

In all his magnificence, Jordan still proved he is only human. After dropping two pressure-packed free throws to send the game into overtime, Jordan misfired on a 15-footer with three seconds left in the first overtime. That shot would have finished off the Celtics and brought a richly deserved triumph to the Bulls.

If Jordan hit that shot, the Bulls would have won the game. That was independent of his teammates and solely within his control. The truth is the truth. Though I wonder if anyone would be talking about that game the way they do if Jordan hit that shot, and thus didn't score a playoff-record 63 points. I wonder.

As always...very thoughtful post. I wonder how many folks here even knew that MJ scored those record points because of double-OT (he had 54 in regulation.)

[Math2]

As always...very thoughtful post. I wonder how many folks here even knew that MJ scored those record points because of double-OT (he had 54 in regulation.)

54 is still great, but it seems way overrated about how he scored 63. He scored 49 in game one....and held to 19 in game 3...Way overrated postseason.

[jlauber]

54 is still great, but it seems way overrated about how he scored 63. He scored 49 in game one....and held to 19 in game 3...Way overrated postseason.

Well, before we both get blasted here by the Jordanites...I will acknowledge that MJ was the game's greatest post-season scorer. And, once again, he certainly has a solid case as the GOAT.

STill, hard to argue with a player that won 11 rings in 13 seasons.

[Math2]

Well, before we both get blasted here by the Jordanites...I will acknowledge that MJ was the game's greatest post-season scorer. And, once again, he certainly has a solid case as the GOAT.

STill, hard to argue with a player that won 11 rings in 13 seasons.

Great scorer...solid case...11 rings>than anything

[The_Yearning]

I have seen Wilt play. Nobody that was over 6'7 guarded him.

And sometimes he wouldn't even run back on defense, his teams were playing 4v5 on defense while Wilt waited at the other end right by the goal.

[Math2]

I have seen Wilt play. Nobody that was over 6'7 guarded him.

And sometimes he wouldn't even run back on defense, his teams were playing 4v5 on defense while Wilt waited at the other end right by the goal.

Link?